Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Animal Liberation Front thread
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
tinkleDRINKER



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 788
 Reply with quote  

if an action is intended to do physical damage, then it is consisdered violent. is this proper logic? if so why would any person choose violent protest when non-violent has been proven effective? it seems that this is a rash course of action (blowing up a burger chain or anything similar) that would only be taken upon by a irrational organization. if anti-violence is what you preach, i would say anti-violence should be your course of action.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:20 am
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

Better judgement ensued.

Carry on, sorry.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:47 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
barlow



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1100
Location: Leeds, UK
 Reply with quote  

tinkleDRINKER wrote:
if an action is intended to do physical damage, then it is consisdered violent. is this proper logic? if so why would any person choose violent protest when non-violent has been proven effective? it seems that this is a rash course of action (blowing up a burger chain or anything similar) that would only be taken upon by a irrational organization. if anti-violence is what you preach, i would say anti-violence should be your course of action.


yes dear
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:48 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Beep



Joined: 06 Dec 2002
Posts: 599
Freedom  Reply with quote  

its a two way street they sell what they want and the others can blow up what they want, its just pointless it would be more effective to have a protest rather then me extrme about it but i mean thats what i think or better yet write letters to imporent people but i mean people will kill animals thats something you cant do anything about, just do eat meat if thats how you feel and try to impower peolpe with knowlage
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message
barlow



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1100
Location: Leeds, UK
Re: Freedom  Reply with quote  

Beep wrote:
its a two way street they sell what they want and the others can blow up what they want, its just pointless it would be more effective to have a protest rather then me extrme about it but i mean thats what i think or better yet write letters to imporent people but i mean people will kill animals thats something you cant do anything about, just do eat meat if thats how you feel and try to impower peolpe with knowlage


Is this a joke?
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Beep



Joined: 06 Dec 2002
Posts: 599
err..  Reply with quote  

"dont eat meat" that was a typo sorry
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:01 am
 View user's profile Send private message
barlow



Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 1100
Location: Leeds, UK
Re: err..  Reply with quote  

Beep wrote:
"dont eat meat" that was a typo sorry


I didnt even notice that in amongst the rest of the spelling mistakes and lack of punctuation.

try to impower peolpe with knowlage was the bit that made me laugh the most :)
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message
imatopos



Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 91
Well . . .  Reply with quote  

Since I was semi-responsible for starting this, I guess I should say something . . .

I think the point of people who engage in ALF-like actions is that all of the "non-violent" means mentioned--protesting, consciousness-raising, letter-writing, etc.--have been tried ad nauseam, and they haven't worked in this particular instance. In fact, we kill more animals now than ever--literally billions of animals each year, and while we take the "high road" and follow all of the classical civil rights tactics, billions upon billions more animals will continue to die. So I think with that frustration in mind, activists resort to more extreme tactics. I don't think the finger should be pointed at animal activists--it should be pointed at meat-eaters, experimenters, and those of us who support these industries. If we didn't support these cruel practices--and let's face it, there are no sound arguments that would justify any of our practices toward animals; our cruelty is merely a matter of convention and habit--activists wouldn't have to resort to such extreme measures. So if you'd like to see this kind of activism cease, you have two choices: (1) give some reasons or an argument to show how activists are wrong and why animals ought to be subjected to massive amounts of cruelty and suffering (good luck!); (2) convince your friends, families, and everyone else you come across to make a few simple changes in their lives that put an end to the mindless and cruel manner in which we treat many animals.

ALF activists are, in my opinion, pursuing a perfectly acceptable course of action. If people were aware of just how horrible the situation is for many animals, I think many (though not all) would agree in a heartbeat that direct action is as good of a tactic as any the human/welfare movement has come up with.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

"if so why would any person choose violent protest when non-violent has been proven effective? "

To be quite honest pure non-violent protest has never, ever, effected real change. It was always coupled with violence or the threat of vioelence. I can't think of a single counter example.


also as a non-vegetarian who thinks most of this animal rights stuff is a little silly to be honest let me say that the ALF really isn't engaged in "blowing up MacDonalds" it is more likely that they would break into a fur place and release the animals. it is the Animal LIbertarion Front.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
prolifik



Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 488
 Reply with quote  

I just want to make sure that everybody is remaining consistant, because I wouldn't want to embarrass anybody who supports the use of violence as a means of protest, but is also waiving an anti-war sign. You're either a pacifist or you aren't, you can't have it both ways.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
natas sevol dog



Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 345
Location: dallas area
i *heart* fast food  Reply with quote  

do you really think writing a letter to a congress person(or whoever you consider important enough to waste a letter on) will ever change anything? unless you got a map leading to a few million printed on the letter, its not gonna mean shit. as with protest, when was the last time you saw a peaceful protest covered in the media, I dont really read the newpaper or watch tv a lot so maybe theyve turned a new leaf and cover all sides of stories, but pretty much the only way to get news coverage is if you do something "violent"(the quotes is because alf and elf do property destruction not ever has anyone been hurt other than maybe the members doing the action).
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 12:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

prolifik:

you are wrong. To begin with I can be for property damage and be against violence against humans.

Secondly you can be anti-war for other reasons than just pacifism. Maybe you think the iraq war is jsut a wrong war to get into for example. Things are so cut and dry.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
prolifik



Joined: 02 Oct 2002
Posts: 488
 Reply with quote  

I agree with your points, but I never singled you out as the person I was addressing. Lets be real here though, we all know what some of the popular ingredients of the leftist lifestyle are, e.g. vegetarianism, reading noam chomsky, organic foods, pseudo-artsy expression, yoga lol, and pacifism, just to name a few. I just want to make sure that some of the folks who are subscribing to pacifism specifically, and are against war due to that fact, are not also condoning the use of violence as a tool of protest.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Estella



Joined: 02 Dec 2002
Posts: 28
 Reply with quote  

tinkleDRINKER wrote:
if anti-violence is what you preach, i would say anti-violence should be your course of action.


Exactly. What about non-violent protests? A non-violent strike? This might be far-fetched but what if this issue was addressed to the president somehow?
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 1:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
August Spies



Joined: 09 Aug 2002
Posts: 1979
Location: D.C.
 Reply with quote  

prolifik:

but, as noted, all talk of "violence" here has been against property. This is quite different than against humans. At least in the minds of most activists.
Post Tue Dec 17, 2002 2:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:46 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon